JUDGMENT : NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA, J. 1. Instant appeal filed by the appellant-plaintiff (for short ‘the plaintiff’) against the judgment and decree dated 12.07.2019 passed by learned Additional District Judge No. 3, Ajmer in Civil Suit No. 22/2017 (CIS No. 307/2014) titled as Shri Jain Shwetamber Shri Sangh Panjikrit Sanstha through President vs. State of Rajasthan and Others by which trial court dismissed the plaintiff’s suit for declaration and permanent injunction. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction against the respondents (defendants (for short ‘the defendants’) mentioning therein that the plaintiff is a representative body of Mandir Margi Sect of Jain religion in Ajmer. The suit property is situated at Ajmer consisting of 10 khasra numbers total admeasuring 10 Bighas 18 Biswas, which is surrounded by boundary wall and temple of Dadabari and Parshwanath deity, hostel, auditorium, Bhojanshala etc. were constructed there. Earlier the property was recorded in the name of ‘Mandir Margi Oswal Panchayat’ through its Mohatmim Seth Heera Chand Sancheti for last 80-90 years. In the year 1955, members of Mandir Margi Sect constituted a body in the name of plaintiff i.e. Shri Jain Shwetamber Shri Sangh and got it registered in the year 1958 to look after all the temples and religious places etc. belonging to Mandir Margi Oswal Panchayat. Subsequently, except four khasra numbers namely 3923, 3924, 3925 and 4736 measuring 2 Bighas 10 Biswas, remaining land of Khasra No. 3927, 3928, 3929, 3930, 3931, 3932 measuring 8 Bighas 8 Biswas were recorded as Sivay Chak without any court order and subsequently it was mutated in the name of UIT, Ajmer from 31.03.2004. After that, in pursuance of Government order dated 23.11.2006, the defendant No. 3 allotted the property to defendant No. 4 w.e.f. 27.11.2006 and lease deed was executed in favour of defendant No. 4 on 04.12.2006. The plaintiff had filed a revenue suit against it. These orders were without jurisdiction. So, plaintiff is not bound by these orders. After some differences, members of both subsects arrived at settlement on 21.01.1994. It was further confirmed and approved in the general body meeting dated 03.04.1994. As per the settlement, it was decided that the plaintiff will continue to manage the affairs of all the religious and charitable activities of Mandir Margi Oswal Panchayat. 3. After some differences, members of both subsects arrived at settlement on 21.01.1994. It was further confirmed and approved in the general body meeting dated 03.04.1994. As per the settlement, it was decided that the plaintiff will continue to manage the affairs of all the religious and charitable activities of Mandir Margi Oswal Panchayat. 3. Defendant Nos.1 to 3 filed written statement and did not specifically controvert the averments of the plaintiff but gave evasive reply. Defendant No. 4 in his written statement mentioned that registered land was donated by the then Ruler Anoraj Raja to Dada Jindutt Suri Ji who was the first Acharya of Khattargacchh Sect. It was also mentioned that the plaintiff is not successor of Mandir Margi Oswal Panchayat and compromise dated 21.01.1994 being unregistered, unstamped document, it is not acceptable by parties. So, this compromise has no evidentary value. 4. Trial court framed the following issues on the basis of pleadings of the parties: (1) Whether the plaintiff has possession over the land mentioned in Para 1 of the plaint which was entered in the revenue record in the name of Mandir Margi Panchayat Oswal Mohatmim Seth Heera Chand Sancheti, the plaintiff’s predecessor, and in the year 1955 members of Mandir Margi Oswal Panchayat got it constituted and registered as Jain Shwetamber Shri Sangh, thus plaintiff became owner of the said property? (2) Whether except land mention in Para 7 of the plaint out of the land mentioned in Para 1 of the plaint, land of rest khasra numbers was deleted from the name of plaintiff in the Jamabandi of 2020 without any basis and recorded as Sivay Chak? (3) Whether mutation No. 203 and 204 dated 31.03.2004 by which land was recorded in the name of defendant No. 3 is illegal and unauthorized? (4) Whether compromise dated 21.01.1994 was executed between plaintiff and defendant No. 4 and defendant No. 4 is bound by it? (5) Whether allotment letter dated 27.11.2006 and lease deed dated 04.12.2006 being illegal, void and ineffective, do not have adverse effect on plaintiff’s right? (6) Whether compromise dated 21.01.1994 is unregistered, insufficiently stamped and not acted upon? (7) Relief? 5. Learned senior counsel for the plaintiff submits that learned trial court wrongly dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff. (5) Whether allotment letter dated 27.11.2006 and lease deed dated 04.12.2006 being illegal, void and ineffective, do not have adverse effect on plaintiff’s right? (6) Whether compromise dated 21.01.1994 is unregistered, insufficiently stamped and not acted upon? (7) Relief? 5. Learned senior counsel for the plaintiff submits that learned trial court wrongly dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff. Learned senior counsel for the plaintiff also submits that finding of the trial court is wholly contrary to the facts of the case and contrary to law. Learned senior counsel for the plaintiff also submits that plaintiff in his plaint as well as evidence proved that Mandir Margi Oswal Panchayat Mohatmim Manager Seth Heera Chand Sancheti had land consisting of Khasra No. 3923, 3924, 3925, 3927, 3928, 3929, 3930, 3931, 3932 and 4736 since 80-90 years. In the year 1955, a meeting of members of Mandir Margi Oswal Mohatmim Panchayat was held on 16.03.1955. The members of Tapogacchh and Khatargacchh were in it and they decided to constitute a body in the name of plaintiff i.e. Shri Jain Shwetamber Shri Sangh and got it registered to look after all the temples and religious places etc. belonging to Mandir Margi Oswal Panchayat. Shri Ratan Chand Sancheti presided over the meeting. Learned senior counsel for the plaintiff also submits that in Samvat 2020, land of Khasra No. 3923, 3924, 3925 and 4736 measuring 2 Bighas 10 Biswas was only entered in the name of Mandir Margi Panchayat Oswal and rest of Khasra numbers were deleted in the name of Mandir Margi Panchayat Oswal and entered as Sivay Chak without any reason. Learned senior counsel for the plaintiff also submits that in the year 1955, Mandir Margi Panchayat Oswal was merged into Shri Jain Shwetamber Shri Sangh. It was also got registered under the provisions of Rajasthan Public Trust Act. Learned senior counsel for the plaintiff also submits that property consisting of plaintiff is of a Temple of Lord, Dadabari and Parshwanath which is surrounded by Pucca boundary wall in which hostel, auditorium, Bhojanshala, school, Dharamshala, Vridhaashram, hospital and accommodation have been constructed for employees. 6. Learned senior counsel for the plaintiff also submits that on 31.03.2004, disputed land was entered in the name of Urban Improvement Trust, Ajmer and UIT, Ajmer allotted the land to defendant No. 4 on 27.11.2006 and lease deed was executed on 04.12.2006. 6. Learned senior counsel for the plaintiff also submits that on 31.03.2004, disputed land was entered in the name of Urban Improvement Trust, Ajmer and UIT, Ajmer allotted the land to defendant No. 4 on 27.11.2006 and lease deed was executed on 04.12.2006. Learned senior counsel for the plaintiff also submits that the said disputed land was never acquired by the Competent Authority and Government has no power to allot the land to Urban Improvement Trust without acquiring it. So, action of the Government is not legality tenable. Learned senior counsel for the plaintiff also submits that a compromise was arrived between the plaintiff and defendant No. 4 on 21.01.1994 in which defendant No. 4 admitted the ownership of the plaintiff regarding the disputed property. Witness of defendant No. 4-Narendra Kumar Lunia admitted the signature of his grandfather Shri Ramlal Lunia on it. 7. Learned senior counsel for the plaintiff also submits that disputed property was entered as a trust property and registered under the Trust Act. So, civil court had no right to decide the ownership regarding property. Learned senior counsel for the plaintiff also submits that defendant No. 4 in his written statement as well as evidence mentioned that disputed land was allotted by the then King Anoraj Raja to Dada Jindutt Suri Ji, but they failed to submit any document regarding allotment during evidence. Learned senior counsel for the plaintiff also submits that they had filed a suit before Revenue Court regarding deletion of the land and entry thereof as a Sivay Chak and said suit is pending before the Competent Court. 8. Learned senior counsel for the plaintiff also submits that order of the Additional Collector, Ajmer (Ex.22) also supported the plaintiff’s contention that disputed land was in ownership of the plaintiff. 9. Learned senior counsel for the plaintiff also submits that the plaintiff has filed an application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC by which the plaintiff has sought to take on record the application filed by Shri Jain Shwetamber Khartargacchh Sangh, judgment dated 30.05.2013 passed by Assistant Commissioner, Devsathan and constitution of Shri Jain Shwetamber Khartargacchh Sangh. Learned senior counsel for the plaintiff also submits that these documents are necessary for adjudication of present appeal. Learned senior counsel for the plaintiff also submits that these documents are necessary for adjudication of present appeal. These documents prove that Shri Jain Shwetamber Khartargacchh Sangh had not ownership of the disputed property because they wrote in the application filed by them that disputed property is not of their ownership. So, application filed by the plaintiff be allowed and judgment and decree of the trial court be set aside. 10. Learned senior counsel for the plaintiff has placed reliance upon the following judgments: (1) Vijay Pullarwar and Others vs. Shri Hanuman Deostan, (2019) 11 SCC 718 (2) Shri Jin Kushal Guru Prachin Dadawadi Bhakjan Samiti vs. Chetani Vyason Ki Bagichi Neelkanth Mahadev Trust, S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 2/2009 decided on 26.09.2011 (3) B.K. Ravichandra and Others vs. Union of India and Others, (2021) 14 SCC 703 (4) Hari Krishna Mandir Trust vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, (2020) 9 SCC 356 (5) Rattan Chand and Others vs. Mori (Dead) by LRs. and Others, (2010) 11 SCC 768 (6) Geega Ram and Another vs. Board of Revenue and Others, 2008 (1) WLC 110 (7) Jaipur Development Authority vs. Khaju Shah @ Khaju Khan and Others, 2015 SCC Online Raj 3307 (8) Rajinder Singh vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir and Others, (2008) 9 SCC 368 (9) Sankalchan Jaychanddbhai Patel and Others vs. Vithalbhai Jaychandbhai Patel and Others, (1996) 6 SCC 433 (10) Sawarni vs. Inder Kaur and Others, (1996) 6 SCC 223 (11) Jitendra Singh vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others, 2021 SCC Online SC 802 11. Learned senior counsel for the defendants has opposed the arguments advanced by learned senior counsel for the plaintiff and submitted that land of the disputed land was given by the then King Anoraj Raja to Dada Jindutt Suri Ji. Learned senior counsel for the defendants also submits that Mandir Margi Oswal Panchayat had no connection with the plaintiff and no merger took place. Learned senior counsel for the defendants also submits that plaintiff failed to produce any documents which proved that Mandir Margi Oswal Panchayat constituted as Shri Jain Shwetamber Shri Sangh in the year 1955. Document (Ex.16) on which plaintiff relied is only regarding the management of the temples and religious places. Learned senior counsel for the defendants also submits that plaintiff’s witness Suresh Chand deliberately denied the contents of the document (Ex.16). Document (Ex.16) on which plaintiff relied is only regarding the management of the temples and religious places. Learned senior counsel for the defendants also submits that plaintiff’s witness Suresh Chand deliberately denied the contents of the document (Ex.16). Document (Ex-16) was only for the management of the temples and religious places. 12. This document did not prove any ownership. Learned senior counsel for the defendants also submits that disputed land was wrongly entered in the name of Mandir Margi Oswal Panchayat in the revenue record in Samvat 2016-2019. Plaintiff failed to submit any document regarding ownership of the disputed land. Learned senior counsel for the defendants also submits that as per the plaintiff’s contention, Mandir Margi Oswal Panchayat was constituted as Shri Jain Shwetamber Shri Sangh in 1955 but Adhyaksh Chaganmal Jalori had written various letters (Ex.1 to Ex.3) to authorities in which he demanded to restore the disputed land in revenue record in the name of Mandir Margi Oswal Panchayat. Learned senior counsel for the defendants also submits that if Shri Jain Shwetamber came into existence in place of Mandir Margi Oswal Panchayat then there was no occasion to write these letters for the restoration of the land in the name of Mandir Margi Oswal Panchayat. Learned senior counsel for the defendants also submits that revenue suit was also filed in the name of Mandir Margi Oswal Panchayat in the year 2006 whereas Mandir Margi Oswal Panchayat was said to be constituted as Shri Jain Shwetamber Shri Sangh in the year 1955 as per the contention of the plaintiff. Learned senior counsel for the defendants also submits that document (Ex.22) which was the judgment dated 22.10.1959 of Additional Collector, Ajmer, land was declared in the possession of Mandir Margi Oswal Panchayat. So, it revealed that Shri Jain Shwetamber Shri Sangh was not in existence at that time. 13. Learned senior counsel for the defendants also submits that compromise (Ex.38) was not binding upon the defendants because plaintiff had not obey the compromise. Learned senior counsel for the defendants also submits that plaintiff’s witness Suresh Chand had also admitted that proceedings of general meeting was not filed. Learned senior counsel for the defendants also submits that present suit filed by the plaintiff is time barred because by way of this suit, they are challenging the disputed land which was entered in the name of UIT Ajmer on 31.03.2004. 14. Learned senior counsel for the defendants also submits that present suit filed by the plaintiff is time barred because by way of this suit, they are challenging the disputed land which was entered in the name of UIT Ajmer on 31.03.2004. 14. Learned counsel for the defendants has opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the plaintiff for taking the documents filed with the application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC on record at this stage. Learned counsel for the defendants also submitted that these documents are not necessary for adjudication of the appeal and there is no bona fide reason for not filing these documents at belated stage. Learned counsel for the defendants also submitted that the defendants rightly wrote in the application that at present, disputed land is not their possession. It will be mentioned after receiving the possession. So, appeal as well as application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC filed by the plaintiff be dismissed. 15. Learned senior counsel for the defendants has placed reliance upon the following judgments: (1) Nagpur Improvement Trust vs. Sheela Ramchandra Tikhe, (2019) 11 SCC 552 (2) Padhiyar Prahladji Chenaji (Deceased) through LRs. vs. Maniben Jagmalbhai (Deceased) through LRs. and Others, (2022) 12 SCC 128 (3) Khatri Hotels Private Limited vs. Union of India and Another, (2011) 9 SCC 126 (4) Shanti Conductors Private Limited vs. Assam State Electricity Board and Others, (2020) 2 SCC 677 (5) M/s Sree Surya Developers and Promoters vs. N. Sailesh Prasad and Others in Civil Appeal No. 439/2022 decided on 09.02.2022 16. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the plaintiff as well as learned counsel for the defendants. 17. The contention of the plaintiff that Mandir Margi Oswal Panchayat through its Mohatmim, Seth Heera Chand Sancheti was constituted as Shri Jain Shwetamber Shri Sangh in the year 1955 but plaintiff failed to submit any document which shows the merger of Mandir Margi Oswal Panchayat in Shri Jain Shwetamber Shri Sangh. Plaintiff relied on the document (Ex.16). A perusal of the said document reveals that the said document was only for the management of the Jain Temple and religious places. It was not a title document. Plaintiff relied on the document (Ex.16). A perusal of the said document reveals that the said document was only for the management of the Jain Temple and religious places. It was not a title document. Contention of learned counsel for the plaintiff that defendants failed to prove the document of the allotment of the dispute land by the then King Anoraj Raja to Dada Jindutt Suri Ji, but in my considered opinion, plaintiff has to stand on his own leg. Weakness of the defendant does not confirm the title of the plaintiff. Plaintiff’s witness PW1-Suresh Chand gave evasive reply at the time of cross-examination. In cross-examination he admitted the fact that Jain Shwetamber Shri Sangh consists two Mandirs; one Parshawanath and second Lakhan Kothdi Mandir. He had deliberately denied the fact mentioned in the document (Ex.16) regarding management of the temple. As per the plaintiff’s contention, Mandir Margi Oswal Panchayat was constituted as Shri Jain Shwetamber Shri Sangh in the year 1955, but as per the document (Ex.16) and various letters wrote by the Shri Chaganlal to various authorities in the year 2005 for restoring the disputed land in the name of Mandir Margi Panchayat Oswal Mohtmim shows that Mandir Margi Oswal Panchayat was in existence in the year 2005. If Mandir Margi Oswal Panchayat became Jain Shwetamber Shri Sangh, then no occasion arises to register the name of Mandir Margi Oswal Panchayat in the revenue record instead of Shri Jain Shwetamber Shri Sangh. Revenue suit was also filed in the name of Mandir Margi Oswal Panchayat. These facts are contradictory to the pleading and evidence led by the plaintiff. Order of the Additional Collecotr, Ajmer (Ex.22) also did not support the plaintiff’s case. In the said order disputed land was mentioned in the name of Mandir Margi Oswal Panchayat. The said order was of the year 1959. Compromise (Ex.38) was not complied by the plaintiff and the said compromise was not acted upon. Proceedings of the general meeting was not filed by the plaintiff. Plaintiff failed to prove is case that disputed land was in the name of Mandir Margi Oswal Panchayat before the Samvat 2016. Disputed land was registered as Sivay Chak and was allotted to UIT in the year 2004 and UIT, Ajmer allotted the said disputed land to the defendant No. 4 on 27.11.2006 and lease deed was executed on 04.12.2006. 18. Disputed land was registered as Sivay Chak and was allotted to UIT in the year 2004 and UIT, Ajmer allotted the said disputed land to the defendant No. 4 on 27.11.2006 and lease deed was executed on 04.12.2006. 18. I have considered the arguments advanced on application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC. Documents filed by the plaintiff are not necessary for adjudication of this appeal and no bona fide cause has been shown by the plaintiff for filing these documents at this belated stage. So, in my considered opinion, present appeal as well as application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC being devoid of merit, are liable to be dismissed which stand dismissed. 19. Pending applications, if any, stands disposed of.